tv [untitled] April 17, 2011 12:00am-12:30am PDT
supervisor mar: the meeting will come to order. welcome, everyone. this is the regular meeting of the land use and economic committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. are there any announcements for us? >> yes, please make sure to turn on cellular phones and pagers. completed speaker cries and talk is of documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk -- completed speaker cards and copies of documents to be included as part of the file. supervisor mar: thank you. we have five items on the agenda, and we will move as quickly as we can to items four and five, but before we do, we have three quick items that we will hear first.
could you please call item 1? >> resolution authorizing an acceptance of ease anrpetual exn for the installation, construction, operation, inspection, of the san walk-in pipeline project -- the san joaquin pipeline project. supervisor mar: thank you. then a good afternoon. -- >> good afternoon. this is a quick and simple item. this is regarding an easement deep to be excepted from stanislaus -- accepted from stanislaus county. part of the water system improvement project undertaken by the puc. this particular location is highlighted on the attached map in the yellow area between
modesto and tracy, in particular, to give you a sense of the location. a far different atmosphere than we have in the city. this is essentially an over crossing between the act with up and rode in stanislaus county -- between the aqueduct and road. it gives teh puc -- the puc the right to make changes to the aqueduct. the actual area impacted is 7387 square feet. the purchase price has been negotiated through an mou between the county of san francisco and stanislaus county as a zero purchase price for the county of san francisco, simply paying their inspection fees, which we estimate to tallying around $73,000. the mou was executed.
parcells themselves -- there is actually 16 properties involved in this overall undertaking -- have been approved through a prior ceqa analysis and general plan referral is also referenced in the board file. happy to answer any questions you may have about this. supervisor mar: seeing no questions, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward? so moved unanimously. thank you. please call item two. >> item two, ordinance amendment the administrative code residential rent ordinance for the good samaritan basement following emergency dislocation of tenant. supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you to everyone for coming out today.
this amendment to the rent control ordinance is a long overdue and common-sense measure to insure that tenants who are displaced by a natural for human made disaster are able to obtain affordable and available temporary housing quickly while their units are being prepared. it will also provide incentives for these rentals. we know a major earthquake is going to hit san francisco at some point in the not too distant future. we know many rent-controlled units in san francisco are seismically both durable and older housing stock. we know that after a major earthquake, a large number of tenants in rent-controlled housing stock are likely to need temporary housing quickly while their units are fixed. there are landlords who are willing to rent to tenants who are displaced at low rates on a temporary basis, but the law as
it currently stands provides a disincentive for landlords to enter into this kind of temporary, below-market arrangement. specifically if a landlord offers is the senate, below- market rent for the time when the tenants original unit is being fixed. if the tenant decides not to return to the original unit, there is nothing the landlord can do about it. the tenant will be entitled to stay in the temporary unit in definitely with full rent control protection at the below market rent. this means that landlords either will not rent or will only read to displaced tenants at market rates. the goal is to encourage landlords voluntarily to rent and do so temporarily at below- market rates. it creates effectively a new kind of tendency -- tenancy where a tenet has been displaced could enter into a specifically temporary lease with a landlord
lasting up to one year or, upon mutual agreement come up to two years. the landlord could charge rent that is no more than 10% higher than what the tenant was paying, and at the end of that one year or two years, the tenancy with either and, or they could enter into a new arrangement at a mutually agreeable red. -- rent. we believe that this will increase the supply of affordable temporary housing after a natural for human made disaster. so, colleagues, ask for your support, and i know that we have folks here who are going to speak in terms of the broad support for this measure. i work with both tenant organizations and property owner organizations to come up with good legislation that benefits the city. supervisor mar: thank you.
supervisor wiener: i should also just note that i do have an amended version of the legislation initially introduced that it was fairly skeletal legislation. we have since fleshed it out. it is not a substantive change, but it does flesh out a lot of the details of the legislation. again, i work very closely with all sides on these amendments, and everyone is aware of them, so i am proposing as an amendment as a whole. >> supervisors, executive director. it is so unusual for me to come before you with something where there is the consent and agreement of both the landlord and tenant communities, so i am
basically taking this moment to bask in this kumbaya moment and tell you that i am here as a resourced if you have any questions for me. thank you. supervisor wiener: ok, we will now hear from members of the public. we have a few speaker cards. if anyone else wishes to comment, please let us know. [reading names] . >> i am president of the small property owners of san francisco. support this legislation to help renters displaced by disaster because of its ultra was the contention, and because it is voluntary. -- because of its altruistic
intention. only the most intrepid of mom- and-pop housing providers are likely to jump at the opportunity to help out because of the fluid nature of the band control ordinance, and that is something that comes from this board of supervisors, but we do support it. thank you. >> good afternoon. san francisco tenants union. i want to thank scott for reaching out to everyone on this. this is a decent piece of legislation. tenants are in big trouble after a fire. there is no word ago, no relocation that the city provides. anything that can be done is helpful. i would like to see just one amendment, it appeared on page four -- i presume i have the most recent version -- section 6 where it asks that the new landlord disclose to the tenant that in one year, their red could be increased by an
unlimited amount, or that they could be evicted. it is not mandatory, though, and i would like to see that made mandatory. i like to see these tenants have the right to return where the fire was or other disaster at the same rent, plus any capital improvements. if they do not know that there read my increase by an unlimited amount in a year, i can see tenants getting in a position where they would say that they did not really want to go back to the old place, and they liked the new place. the rent is pretty affordable, and tenants are going to end up leaving the right to return, and out of the blue, because the landlord never told them, they get an unlimited meant increase. with that correction, that would make this pretty foolproof, and we will not see any tenants who are inadvertently actually hurt by this legislation. just to make section 6 mandatory as opposed to discretionary would be our suggestion. other than that, i think i
share that it is great to have everyone together here. thank you. >> thank you. i would just know, it is actually page 5 at the bottom, and it is mandatory, but it does not invalidate the least -- lease if the landlord fails to provide it, but it is mandatory. i just wanted to know that. thank you. -- i just wanted to note that. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the director of the san francisco apartment association, and i would just like to thank supervisors wiener -- supervisor wiener for reaching out and creating this legislation. with some of the disasters we have had already, i have
personally tried to find rental housing for tenants, and it has been rather difficult to do so because of rent control and some other limitations that we have because of the rent control ordinance. this legislation will actually make the job of rental housing providers in san francisco a lot easier, and it will enable them to provide housing to tenants who are in need of housing in emergency situations. i would like to thank supervisors wiener -- supervisor wiener for his leadership and ask you all to vote yes on this and pass it forward to the full board. >> i am a small property owner
in san francisco. i'm here to speak in favor of the ordinance. i want to applaud supervisor wiener for reaching out to all parties involved in this. i think it is a fine ordinance. i have a few concerns about, which i have expressed, and that is that no good deed goes unpunished. i am concerned about small property owners who may not know all the intricacies of the ordinance that might not give the required forms to the tenant, and therefore, will be stuck with a long-term renters at a below market rate that they did not intend to enter into that kind of contract, so i hope that the board will come up with a corporate forms that it -- come up with appropriate forms that a property owner can use to make the necessary disclosure to tenants. thank you. supervisor wiener: is there any further public comment? yes, i'm sorry, peter, right. >> i am the executive director
of small property owners. i just wanted to add my two since -- cents. i think that most landowners want to help renters, and this makes it possible to do so. thank you. supervisor wiener: is there any further public comment? public comment is closed? supervisor mar: colleagues, we have the amendment as a whole. can we move that without objection? and then on the ordinance itself. supervisor wiener: i move to 4 with the ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation. supervisor mar: without objection, recommended. thank you. please call the next item. >> item 3, a hearing on the treasure island/yerba buena island redevelopment. supervisor mar: this is one of a
series of hearings on the treasure island development. >> thank you. this is our second time before you, and we have a presentation as well if we could put that up on the monitor. we will be brief, but we did want to send some ongoing discussions about treasure island, mostly, that relate to the state and governor proposals to eliminate redevelopment. we wanted to kind of continue those discussions in-house, just a brief overview. you also asked for some additional information on tsunami link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c about a 15-minute presentation. as we talk about in our last meeting and no doubt you have heard, the governor has a proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies. this is obviously in the context
of massive budget problems at the state level. in 50% of revenue, is spent at the state level on education, and that is kind of the crux of the issue, trying to get more money going back to schools. the governor has a bill before the legislature. it missed passing by a 2/3 vote a couple of weeks ago by a handful of votes, so it could come back. we are just hearing that it may be brought back by a majority vote. as you know, tida is a redevelopment agency to develop treasure island. we just think it is untenable at this point to move forward under a big development scenario. over the course of redevelopment history, there have been different attempts, successful and unsuccessful, to reduce the amount of money redevelopment agencies get for their programs, which include affordable housing
and economic development. we just think with treasure island is, it is difficult to move forward under a development model. that said, we believe we have a model that does work. they have even talked about -- i think that this committee -- over the last couple of months, with regard to rincon hill, we would do the same thing here. they take a portion of the property tax development when property is taxed and use that to pay for infrastructure and other public improvements within the project. the bonds are secured by the same property tax revenues that come in from the project. there are two key differences. there is less funding available under redevelopment, there is 80 cents on the dollar. it means about $130 million less
of revenue into the project. the project, as you recall, is a $1.5 billion project here also, affordable housing is potentially impacted. affordable housing is not a required use and is actually kind of a restricted use of funds. it only can be used if you are building publicly-owned housing or if you have a replacement housing obligation, whereas with development, you are required to set aside 20% of pretax income and to affordable housing. we are unique in the fact that we do have a replacement housing obligation, so we can use funds for affordable housing. the reason they are a great replacement for redevelopment city-wide or statewide is that you are normally prohibited from using funds for affordable housing. so this chart gives you a quick overview of how property taxes are allocated. normally under redevelopment and under an ifd scenario, so the
city gets 65 cents of every dollar for property tax for the general fund, and the rest is distributed to the school district, and the state gets the 25%, and a couple of other taxing entities get the remainder 2.3%. under redevelopment, 80% of that revenue is diverted to redevelopment. that is why the state does not like it, because they lose that 25% share that goes to education. the 65 cents of general fund, so it is all a -- all local money, is used on the island for infrastructure improvements, so we think there is much less risk in the future. isd bonds are similar to redevelopment. the pledge to pay off bonds similar policy cannot issue the bonds until you actually have development and property tax
being generated on the island. same with redevelopment. san francisco is unique in that it gives a much larger share pre-tax revenue than, say, san jose. again, san francisco is unique in its ability to use isd funding. for treasure island, there are two areas where we do not change in two areas where the project does essentially change. there is no change to the physical project. the project would talk about, the 8000 units, parks and open space remain the same period the eir we're doing will remain the same. the transaction structure also unchanged. tida remains -- it does not remain a redevelopment agency. it becomes a non-profit public benefit corporation that was created before it was given the powers. it would still enter into the the development agreement with the developer, much the way it
did under development. the two major changes, because this is a city project and not a development project -- the land use authority will be housed trough -- house within the planning department. projects like mission bay, the authority for land use decisions is made by the redevelopment agency. city projects, obviously, the decisions are made by planning, which would then become a city project, planning would make the decisions, but the zoning would remain the same. it would just be housed in the planning code. as we talked about the tax increment, it gets reduced by about $130 million. most of the project budget is not discretionary, so improving the island seismically and structurally, adding new infrastructure -- roads, sewers, water pumps, etc. -- paying the navy $50 million, and then a participation payment -- we cannot reduce those as a result of this reduction, so we looked
at certain areas. open space, community facilities, transportation, and housing, as potential reductions to make up for this gap in the project created by the loss of redevelopment. our recommendation, after a lot of consideration in talking with stakeholders, is to reduce the affordable housing component in a project to 25% -- from 25% to 30%. this is a reduction of 400 units, so the affordable housing, instead 2500 units would be 2000 units of 8000. we maintain our commitment for 435 units, serving homeless and formerly homeless individuals. we maintain the 5% inclusion neri, but basically reduced to the general affordable housing component of the project by 5%. we would do that only under the provision that additional money was generated, and we intend to go back to the state and seek
legislation to try to get back some of the shares to make this look more like redevelopment, that we would restore first the housing back to the 30%. we are aware we could get it above the 25%, given the funding we get from the state. it is not sure what that would look like. again, the 5600 market the units would be increased. the 2400 affordable units would be reduced, mostly coming from the authority, affordable housing, which are kind of the general affordable housing we have on the island. the reason -- the reduction in affordable housing kind of makes the most sense is it is the biggest component of the public benefits to the project. we are spending over 25% of the $1.5 billion in project costs and revenues on affordable housing. cards on the open space as well as transportation all below 10%. second, for every dollar reduction in affordable housing,
you would actually get a $3 benefit back to the project, and the reason is you convert and affordable housing block to a market rate lock, which allows you to get revenue from that back into the project as well as generate additional revenue from the project. we also think it is probably the most likely we would be most successful in going back to the state to try to get affordable housing money back into the project. again, the physical project remains the same. our agreement with the navy and state lands agency remains the same. the only difference would be this reduction in affordable housing with the chance to get back up to 35 percent said. we do intend to seek legislative changes to change the law to make them easier to use for large scale projects. allowing the general use of affordable housing and perhaps requiring a certain percentage for affordable housing, much like redevelopment does, and we are working with affordable
housing advocates, affordable housing providers to craft these changes to state law as well as our redevelopment agency and our public finance folks here in the city. we look at a couple of other options to get to the same result and actually try to minimize the impact to affordable housing. i will just show you three here. we are not recommending them, but they are options that we can discuss and consider. one is reducing the inclusion very percentage to 0. remember, it is currently 5%. this would allow you to get 400 units of affordable housing back. you would lose the $300 of affordable inclusion a units, but gained back -- you did did lose the 300 of affordable inclusion their units but gained back 400.
the second option is to eliminate other portions of the public benefits on the project, such as the northern wild and sports park. that is the kind of less improve park area to the north of the island on the project. as well as cut the transit subsidy by 1/3 of the $10 million savings and reduce the community benefits subsidy by about 50%, which is about a $6 million reduction. that would give us the ability to get back a parcel and another 100 units of affordable housing. again, we do not think this is the recommended cut. it degrades the livability of the island. but we wanted to put it out there as a possible reduction. the third alternative is combining the two, which gets you back to 2200 affordable units or 2715%, basically taking the inclusion area off the table as well as taking those reductions. this chart shows you what that means as far as the total affordable program.
moving on to the transaction quickly, we saw this before. this is kind of how the transaction is organized. there is a disposition and development agreement that tida interest into with the developer. there are other plans that attach to that. as well as some stand-alone documents, there was a bit development plan, a development agreement design review process as well as our agreement with the navy. all those remain the same, except we replaced the redevelopment plan with, as i discussed, the special use district, which is housed in the planning codes. the planning commission would have more jurisdiction over the project. the land use plan the ec remains the same here again, for reference, the northern wells and sports bar are in the northeastern portion of the project. it is the biggest part, but
probably the least improved, and that would be the one we would consider cutting if the policy makers, you, and others were not comfortable with the reduction in affordable housing we are recommending. again, the land use change will document the changes in the special use district, but the zoning, which is included in the design for development document, remains the same. i think it is just referred to in the planning code. supervisor mar: i'm going to have to ask you to try to make this really breathe and try to wrap up. >> we have two more. we're going to talk quickly about sea level rise and touch on our jobs program. we have about five more minutes. i am going to introduce our postal engineer on the projects. supervisor mar: ok. very briefly if you can. and yes, there is only four or five slides. a couple of items on the design philosophies, in light of the number of articles